If it has to be stated for the umpteenth time: Steven Ogg has not been featured in any Red Dead entry to date. There has been a persistant confusion on whether or not he had voiced this character, however, he himself confirmed the voice work had not been done by him. I hope this answers your question.

Barbarella isn’t actually a real name just google it and the first thing that pops up is the 1968 movie. Red Dead has made numerous references to old westerns so just wanted to say I think it’s valid trivia on the Alcazar page

Whoa busted sorry the movie is actually based on a comic series. Like I said “Barbarella” don’t exist outside the comics or the movie other than references to that. The first legendary bounty is a female “bandit queen” who shares the same name as an early heroine? C’mon bruh

Yes, I'm familiar with the movie, as well as the comic book that inspired it. No, this doesn't mean I will re-add the exact one.

Trivia is for miscellaneous information that can't be added to other parts of the article. It's not a place to add speculations, unofficial comparisons or unconfirmed influences, and in most situations it doesn't matter how likely they might be.

The fact that that trivia point had "may" in it already invalidates its justification to be on the article.

On the other hand, I'm in favor of trivia points that explain the name's origins, so I don't mind you adding a similar trivia point like this:

Barbarella is a variation of the Latin name Barbara, meaning "strange" or "foreign"; Barbarella originated from the 1968 film by the same name. Alcazar is a Spanish word derived from the Arabic al-qaṣr, meaning "castle" or "fort".

You can also add about the comics in the same sentence, though I believe it's a little too much for just one trivia point.

I would argue that Barbarella is not necessarily a variation of the Latin name Barbara on account that the variations of Barbara are well documented and Barbarella seems to be a fictional name created by its French author. Otherwise, I don’t see much of a difference between your version and mine, but I still think a mention of it is noteworthy. Guess it’s up to you tho Mr Green

Hey there Raziel. I want to discuss a couple things about John's daughter.

I found another mention of John's Daughter. In the mission "The Sport of Kings, and Liars", Nigel West Dickens asks John if he has any children. John replies that he has a son and he had a daughter, but she died. I would've edited it on the page, but unfortunately you guys blocked it. I understand though, I know that page had too much speculation and false informaiton on it.

Another thing is the dialogue between Abigail and John in the second game. John mentions that he hopes that "there will someone new to knit for you soon" which means that they plan on having another kid. I think that that should be something to note.

The page used to have the quote: "I had a daughter, but she died", is this the same dialogue that you refer to for the conversation between John and Nigel West Dickens?

For the second one, that could potentially be a key piece of information. Like Raziel said, if you could pinpoint when it is said, that would be excellent. More importantly, can you remember whether it was said in 1899 or 1907? Again, this is important, as it would specify roughly when she was alive.

If you find out anymore about these or are able to find the conversation between John and Abigail, please let us know!

The quote "I had a daughter, but she died." Comes from a conversation between John and Bonnie very early in the game. It sounds like he's getting these conversations confused. I just watched a video of the full mission "The Sport of Kings, and Liars" Not once does John mention his daughter to Dickens. I've personally beaten Red Dead Redemption four times now. As far as i'm aware. John only mentions his daughter to Bonnie and Luisa. Only twice in the entire game.

It's possible that RDR2 could contain vague dialogue related to John's daughter. But I think some proof is needed. Because I've beaten the entire story of RDR2 twice with both high and low honor and I don't remember a single reference or allusion to John's daughter anywhere, nor has anyone else found such a thing, to my knowledge.

I am not getting it confused. In Red Dead Redemption 1, there are hidden dialogues for when you fail missions. In "Sports of Kings, and Liars" John and Nigel have this conversation If you fail a couple of times before getting to Rathskeller Fork from what I remember:

Nigel: Do you have children, John?

John: Yeah, I have a son. I had a daughter, too, but she died. Do you?

Nigel: I'm sure I had many. If you forgive my forthrighteness, I have a prodigious seed. On account of West Dickens Elixre, that is. Virility is one of its many side effects.

John: I can't believe your still trying to sell that crap to ME. All your tonic does is send a man to the outhouse for 24 hours.

Nigel: Well, I had one son that I know of, but fate whisked away soon after his birth.

As for the second point, look up the video "Beecher's Hope random events Red Dead Redemption 2". Go to the mark at 7:17.

I’ve had a look at the second conversation on John's daughter, and John says: "Be nice to have someone new to knit for one day". In short, this says that he is planning to have another child, it doesn’t say that the Marston daughter exists or will exist, necessarily. In fact, it could even be a third child that he refers to when he says he wants another one, it may not necessarily be the Marston daughter.

For the conversation with Nigel West Dickens, could you find a video of it? If it is true, it would need to be referenced on the page, thus requiring a video to support it.

The thing that brings the Marston daughter into such...disarray lets say is, people like Javier and Bill are aware and reference John's CHILDREN, meaning she was born before he left the gang. She likely died before he left the gang as well.

Why she's not brought up once in RDR 2 tells me that Rockstar likely forgot she existed.

I don't think R* forgot about her. I just think that she didn't have a place in the story they were telling for the prequel. They wouldn't have that "someone knew to knit for you soon" dialogue if they forgot about her.

John mentions to Bonnie a gap of "years" between when he left the gang and his daughter's death, that’s the issue.

As for whether or not the aforementioned dialogue between John and Abigail which possibly references the Marston daughter should be on the page, I certainly don’t think it would be appropriate in the main section, due to there being a lack of any proper connection. However, it could be put in the trivia, as a point saying how it is the only time that she is potentially mentioned in RDR 2, but even that is pushing it. I am yet to make a final decision on it, and without input from other staff members, I cannot say what will happen.

In terms of the conversation with Dickens, I’m afraid I cannot simply take your word for it. That’s not to say that I don’t believe you, but such a conversation would require a reference on the page. Even if I play the mission for myself and discover it to be true, it would still need a reference.

So personally I looked at the video of John saying "Be nice to have someone new to knit for one day" and I think it's way too vague to mention in the actual article. John just comments on Abigail's knitting. It's not like they were talking about having another kid and then he said it. The topic of knitting for "someone new" is incidental at best. Even if he was indeed vaguely talking about having another kid, which I doubt. It can't specifically be about John's future daughter. Becuase she doesn't exist yet. And, putting a speculative mention in the trivia page is determiental as to why we locked the article in the first place. Which was to prevent anything other then concrete fact from being posted on the article.

As for the Nigel West Dickens dialogue, someone will have to confirm it.

Still, i'm in the opinion that should be noted. The page still notes Javier's use of the word "children" despite the context of Redemption 2 making it unlikely he knows about the daughter. I don't think that the "someone new" dialogue is a small, throwaway detail.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the caution. We don't want the page to tailspin into chaos with theories. But while the dialogue doesn't directly relate to John's daughter, it does it imply that John and Abigail are planning to have another kid. That's why it should be noted.

While the "children" quote is vague. It's still Javier specifically mentioning John Marston's children. Children obviously being plural, meaning Jack and John's daughter. And while it might be very likely non canon now thanks to RDR2 that Javier ever knew John's daugher, it was still canon then when the first game released. The sequel did not contradict that until nearly a decade later.

John saying "someone new" isn't nearly as direct as Javier saying John's "children". Really, nothing about the RDR2 conversation implies John is talking about a possible daugher. He could just as easily be talking about Uncle or Charles. Who just recently in the story showed up on the ranch. You could really come up with a plausible explanation for just about any interpretation of it. It's that vague and brief.

That's just my two cents anyways. The admins will come up with a conclusion themsleves.

I don't. From my understanding not many people have a copy of it. It was a limited release. Years and years ago I recall someone on the wiki had a copy of it and shared the info that was inside, then used it to construct the timeline page. Intrestingly enough, the book contained some backstory on Dutch's gang that would later be revealed in Red Dead Redemption 2. Dutch saving John from a hanging as a child, Bill being a soldier, all of that was actually in the GOTY book years before RDR2's release. So it's considered canon, despite being a OOG (out of game) source. That's all I know about it.

I found out that the Annesburg Gunsmith's last name is Schultz however i could not find his first & i want to put his name on the Gunsmith page like i did with Roscoe Brenner. Should i just address him as "Mr. Schultz?"

Fandom is currently talking to Rockstar Games about how we could possibly collaborate more closely with each other.

Would you be okay with Fandom passing on your e-mail address (the one you have associated with your Fandom account) to them, so they can reach out to you? You are this wiki's main admin, and they may want to talk to you about news and updates to the game that might be interesting for the wiki's community.

Thanks, I'll pass on your address then. I can't promise they'll email you right away, or speak to what exactly they'll share, since that's out of my hands, but I appreciate you being open to the collaboration!

I just wanted to let you know that i couldn't find a page on a particular NPC that lives in Manzanita post in rdr 1. So I gave hima a name and wrote down everything i knew (and a couple assumptions) on the page Bruce Reardin. I just wanted to inform you so you dont think im posting fake pages. I also notice a few other random NpPCs issing articles, so I will add those as well.

You accidently blocked me before you answerd my question. Why was it not trivia worthy in your eyes?

Imagine this, RDR2 players start to notice the matching surnames and they get curious, so where do you think they would to satisfy that curiosety? Thats rght, here! but the info they want would not be here because for some unnown reason you decided to remove it.

I think I know whats going on here, you are an admin and its been a while since you got to use that power right? to remind everyone that you are in charge? You call me immature but so far the only reason you have given for removing perfectly good trivia ( from a page LACKING in content mind you ) is simpl;y because I said so

Is THAT very mature, my friend?

I get that being an admin on a wikia for a popular game may be all you have, a point of personal pride and all, but that dont give you fee reign to treat it as your own dictatorship. Its a FANdom, not a YOUdom.

Imagine this, a user actually waiting for his block to expire and doesn't sass back! A wonderful thought, I am sure.

Since you believe I should entertain you, I would this time around. First of all kiddo, if I had truly derived pleasure from my position I wouldn't be responding to this and would have blocked your original account permanently. I am not sure what the fuck happened to you with an admin on another wiki, but you only have your behavior to blame for how things end. Your message to me betrays your words, and did nothing to challenge how I referred to you.

Secondly, my good sir, had they actually been implied to be related, this trivia point might have stayed. There is no indication for that afaik, and surnames like Calloway (and others, which I'm sure to snuff out the wiki when I see them) are not unique. This is like pointing out on two weapons being of the same class in their trivia section. Pointless, irrelevant.

Also the pathetic argument of "the page doesnt have enough content as it is" only makes this worse, for this is just a case of paddling. If you want to keep a bit of trivia just because "it makes the page longer that what it is," you may as well start adding every single action they do as an NPC.

Btw, this account is blocked. We do not allow sockpuppetry, which you oh so eagerly did. Should you do this again, your primary account will be indefinitly blocked, and any new sockpuppet too. I auggest you to stop it at that, or else I'll also make sure to request your accounts to be either globally blocked or disabled, depending on how severe this it.

Raziel Reaper wrote:Imagine this, a user actually waiting for his block to expire and doesn't sass back! A wonderful thought, I am sure.

Since you believe I should entertain you, I would this time around. First of all kiddo, if I had truly derived pleasure from my position I wouldn't be responding to this and would have blocked your original account permanently. I am not sure what the fuck happened to you with an admin on another wiki, but you only have your behavior to blame for how things end. Your message to me betrays your words, and did nothing to challenge how I referred to you.

If you can give me a good reason why the matching surnames are NOT trivia worthy, I will let you remove them.

Look up the meaning of trivia on google

details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value.

Id sure say that the fact that some or many people share the same surname in this universe is in fact information that is of very little value, and what the trivia about it does is in fact tell people to CONSIDER the fact that just because 2 or more people share a surname, it does not mean they are related.

I'll tell you what. I had enough of your little uptight attitude problem in both my and Wag's message walls. You are blocked for a week, hope this time will allow you to grow a little sense of maturity when approaching people on a wiki.

JackiBackiBoy wrote:Just your name alone deserves a block. Grow up, mate. If you find the reasons for the revers to not be valid then confront it in a mature way instead of being an ass about it. Grow up.

Hello. Recently, I made an edit to the Thaddeus Waxman article in an attempt to clarify a trivia item I believed was misleading and vague. User:H. Roosevelt has reverted that edit and subsequent similar edits on three occasions now: [1], [2], [3].

H. Roosevelt has not provided a persuasive rationale for excluding the information I added, and has currently only claimed that it is either "not necessary" or that the info is already present in another article (Guarma), even though the info's inclusion elsewhere does nothing to clear up the vagueness in the Thaddeus Waxman article. He has also brusquely accused me of "harping" on this issue (see his second revert diff above).

I would like to request that you to speak to H. Roosevelt and ask him to stop obstructing my edits, or explain to me how my edit is somehow a violation of wiki policy or harmful to the Thaddeus Waxman article. If I truly am violating policy or harming the article, I will apologize and drop this issue.

Nevermind. After some consideration, I've decided to withdraw this complaint and stop editing this wiki for the foreseeable future. I never planned to contribute here on a long-term basis in the first place, only while I was replaying RDR2, and this dispute unfortunately arising after a mere week of editing has already exhausted my motivation to continue. There's just no sense in pursuing this if my participation as an editor was temporary anyway.

Together, me and H. Roosevelt have decided that the fairest way to resolve the dispute on the Thaddeus Waxman page is via compromise. In my view, both your revision and his were good, and so your last revision has been reworded slightly to hopefully achieve the best of both worlds.

Your choice to leave is sad but ultimately it is your decision, and I respect it. I have, sincerely, been impressed with many of your edits; you are welcome to return at any time.

Because trivia is not meant to be speculation, comparisons or stating the obvious. It's miscellaneous information that has no place on the rest of the page, hence why his trivia points were removed. If people want this information around, I'm sure TV Tropes would be fine with it.